United States Federal Circuit

In a second appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Board's ruling is reversed where it misinterpreted the previous decision in Harari v. Hollmer, 602 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010), in finding that continuity was maintained in the chain of priority between the '566 application and the '880 application involved in the interference,

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/07/2012
• Published 06/07/2012

Judges

• Before PROST, MAYER, and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for appellants. With her on the brief were Alexander J. Hadjis and Kristin L. Yohannan; and Gregory W. Reilly, of San Diego, CA. Of counsel on the brief were Martin C. Fliesler and Joseph P. O'Malley, Fliesler Meyer LLP, of San Francisco, CA.


• For Appellees:
  
• William A. Birdwell, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, of Portland, OR, argued for appellees. With him on the brief were Timothy R. Volpert and Scott E. Warnick.